The column, "White House labors to regroup," written by Julie Pace and Catherine Lucye of the Associated Press, is given front-page news in the Times Record News dated June 6.

Example, the column is an editorial and should have been placed in the editorial section. They state, "Trump's undisciplined style not helping team." That is an opinion.

The third paragraph reads, "The sun was still rising Monday when Trump upended best-laid plans with a blitz of provocative statements delivered via Twitter. He assailed his own Justice Department for its legal strategy to defend his travel ban, potentially creating a new headache as his administration seeks the Supreme Court's backing for the order."

They say Trump assailed (the definition of assailed is viciously attacked) his Justice Department, which isn't true.

He questioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and has asked the Supreme Court to back his travel ban. The Supreme Court decisions are based on laws, not tweets.

If the writers had done their homework, they would have known the Ninth Circuit Court has had a number of their decisions reversed by the Supreme Court and therefore should realize they are political and should have their decisions questioned.

Article II, Paragraph 9 of the Constitution gives the president the authority to issue the immigration ban to protect our Constitution from radial terrorism. In fact, the president swears an oath that he will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The writers should read the Constitution, which may tone down some of their negative comments.